Re: Aquatic ape theory
Osmo Ronkanen (ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI)
4 Oct 1995 13:26:15 +0200
In article <hubey.812627023@pegasus.montclair.edu>,
H. M. Hubey <hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
>ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>
>
>>If the aquatic life bought bipedalism, then it must have happened some
>>4-5 million years ago. If it also caused the loss of body hair, then why
>>did the body hair not return when the aquatic life was over? If the body
----------------- restoring unmarked deletion- ---------------------------
>>hair would have been beneficial for living in land, it should have
>>returned. If it was harmful, then one needs no AAT to explain the loss.
>>I cannot think how having the hair or lack of it could have been so
>>irrelevant that millions of years of evolution did not change it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>don't know. Perhaps other developments made it unnecessary.
>It was hot in Africa. It would seem that they'd need to have
>less fur. As for warmth, I seem to remember reading that natives
>(America??) were sleeping without any cover and their body
>temperatures would stay high at night, instead of dropping like
>those of now when we curl up in covers. So maybe they didn't
>need it because they found a way to keep warm (i.e. fire) and
>didn't need fur.
>
Gee, it is easy to argue when you delete the part where I tell that your
explanation makes the whose AAT unnecessary. If the body hair had become
unnecessary because other facts the evolution would have gotten rid of
it anyway for example so that the controlling of body temperature could
be done by sweating.
Please do not in the future resort to unmarked deletions.
The fact is that we cannot ignore the most recent 5 or so million years
in evolution when one considers something as fundamental as body hair.
Osmo
|